Raped Indian girl, 10, Gives Birth
Source: bbc
A 10-year-old rape victim whose request for an abortion was turned down by the Indian Supreme Court last month has given birth to a baby girl.
The girl was never told that she was pregnant and is not aware that the baby has been delivered.
Both the mother and the newborn are doing fine, an official told the BBC.
The girl alleges she was raped several times in the past seven months by her uncle, who was arrested.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40961137
the Court says they ruled based on some doctor's panel that said an abortion would be risky.
but doctors who had already examined her said the opposite
<The court order came after lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava filed a public interest petition saying doctors who had already examined the girl found her pelvic bones had not fully developed because of her age and the life of both mother and baby were at "very serious risk".
"Medical experts have categorically opined that if the 10-year-old is forced to give birth, either through normal delivery or even through caesarean-section, it may be fatal to the life of the rape survivor as well as to her child," the petition said.>
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40753409
Laurian
(2,593 posts)I have granddaughters that age and I cannot imagine them being forced to endure a pregnancy.
Horrific.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)She did endure 7 months of sexual assault by a trusted family member. This is indeed horrific, and that makes me physically ill.
I truly cannot believe all these people who are in a high dudgeon about a medical decision made by the court under the advice of doctors that said an abortion was too risky at 32 weeks.
In a sea of bad choices, harm physically from abortion to harm from gestation, with her pelvic bones too underdeveloped to endure delivery. They went with the best medical decision. It's repugnant that she was pregnant in the first place and how she got to be, even more so that they couldn't do an abortion without risking her life, as they could have had it been discovered earlier, of all the repugnant choices, they made the best one for her health and mental well being.
There is nothing not horrific about this, or the reaction to it. (Not yours, yours is actually compassionate.)
Bettie
(16,144 posts)victimized by her uncle and then again by the courts.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"doing fine."
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Hopefully the newborn will go to a good home and is healthy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)immature body will have long term.
Osteoporosis later on in life because calcium was diverted from her to the fetus at this point in life, etc.
But hey, she's just a woman, right?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The effects of the pregnancy on her body were already in effect.
What's the "just a woman" stuff about in this context?
They valued her life and didn't just abort so they wouldn't have a child to deal with, regardless of what it risk that procedure posed to her.
I'm glad that they did value her life and her health and they were compassionate enough to not tell her what was happening to her, on top of the rape trauma and all that.
I think they did the right thing. I hope that both the 10 year old and the newborn will be healthy, safe and happy. The baby is probably better off up for adoption than having to deal with the environment being a baby born of rape and incest, where everyone knows about her history.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)because she is so young.
I didn't comment on whether or not she should have gotten an abortion. I commented on the attitude that she's "doing fine," after carrying a pregnancy so young. I hope she will be healthy.
And the fact that she is female, particularly in that culture that values childbearing in a woman above her own well being, would lead them to say that "she's doing fine," having done what she is supposed to do as a female - no matter the impact to her health.
Is that clearer?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)a neonatologist and a pediatrician were reporting on the medical condition of the girl and the newborn, and said that they were both stable and "doing fine", they were supposed to be doing advanced psychological studies?
I don't understand that attacks and the nitpicking here. A horrible thing happened, a 10 year old rape victim was found to be 30 weeks pregnant in a country that limits legal abortion to 20 weeks, with a process for approval for cases where an abortion might be necessary after that point, where there are few obstacles until 20 weeks, where contraception is readily available and people are basically losing their minds.
Her doctors gave a report on her medical condition, in which she was "doing fine" after a surgery, a high risk pregnancy and a huge amount of medical trauma. What's the reasoning behind attacking Dr. Dasari Harish's words that are extremely appropriate for the doctor's who treated her and oversaw her surgery, reporting on the status of their patient post surgery?
This literally makes no sense, and then coupling it with misconceptions about the culture?
She is female, she's also a little girl whose health and well being were considered by literally everyone involved her except her rat bastard of a niece/child raping uncle.
What led them to say "she's doing fine" was a culture that values life, doing their damned jobs and reporting the condition of their patient who just went through something that was terribly hard her body.
As all those doctors and judges from that culture that values their children and their lives especially a 10 year old rape victim kept saying repeatedly that she's a child and her body was not prepared to deliver a pregnancy, but it was a far greater risk to her life to terminate such an advanced pregnancy with an already viable fetus.
I think you do not quite understand the nature of my criticism in attacking these words, but the fact that you ignored the actual culture being displayed here, with the misconception and then find fault with a court doing its job and doctors doing their jobs is quite clear.
I believe you are mistaken here, about the culture and its treatment of women and the focus on child bearing. I'm not even sure where this comes from, but it's based on ignorance, it's time for people to educate themselves about those brown people whose culture they don't know anything about.
This by the way is what lily white doctors in the US (and every color and culture in the world) would report about their patient, immediately after a major surgery in which the patients lives were at risk, and which had a good medical outcome. Had this happened to any of the incest victims right here at home, even though we don't value women's own well being over their value as breeders (as the laws in some red states and the actions of the Catholic owned hospitals keep saying), the doctors would report the same thing.
They're commenting on the medical condition of their patient, it's inappropriate to being in all the cultural ignorance into this.
I agree with you, we don't know how this little girl with deal with the aftermath of the trauma she's already experienced, but it's unreasonable to expect her ob/gyns, her neonatologist, her anesthesiologist, or her pediatrician to opine on her mental state in the future when the immediate issue was her actual life, immediately after a major surgery. The comments about "the culture" based on ignorance about the 'backward" country is nothing more than the underlying racism that is still a unacknowledged force in much of the western world.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That is what I was talking about.
I value life as well, which is why my concern for her well-being remains.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)oversaw, and were speaking about? Why bring all that ignorance of a culture into it?
This is what I've been saying, this latent need to hit out at brown people, and make really ignorant comments, and that's what these are, people who literally know nothing about the culture other other than sensational tabloid type headlines and poor reporting.
I too am concerned about this child, I agree with you that we won't know how the trauma will affect her, but her culture, her religion and her nationality are not what's going to affect her, but the trauma from the rape and the medical consequences of pregnancy at such a young age.
Her doctors can only report on her current medical condition, and I think it's unfair to use their perfectly normal statements reporting good news, to take a stab at them, their country and their culture.
Then we've got the people who insist that abuse of India, its culture, its judicial systems (which in this case worked extremely well), it's people etc. is justified because it's somehow not racism. It is. It's ugly but it needs to be confronted, it only needs some sunlight and a bit of education to treat.
I don't believe you to be racist, but some examination of where some of those defenses came from is in order. I'm glad you value lie, and that you're concerned, few people bothered to actually bother to show that on this page. I had thought that was what made us liberal and progressive, and so soon after those tiki torches, it was disheartening to see some of the things said here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And yes, there is a patriarchal culture in India as well, in some areas more than others.
I would say the same for a child in that situation in this country, no matter her race.
Your veiled accusation of racism is misplaced, and I don't understand your comment that no one else here has expressed a "value for life," when it's clear that it's been expressed multiple times.
Is that clearer?
LisaL
(44,980 posts)Her pregnancy wasn't discovered until she was 30 weeks along.
Whatever problems she might have wouldn't have been solved by abortion, which was unsafe because of how far along she was.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)she's "doing fine" until later on.
Is that clearer?
Demonaut
(8,937 posts)"The girl was never told that she was pregnant and is not aware that the baby has been delivered" ?
TNNurse
(6,931 posts)or did she have a c-section? Did they give her anesthesia and deliver vaginally? She could not have been awake and not know something happened she did not understand.
TNNurse
(6,931 posts)C-section. Wonder how will they explain that to her???
Response to TNNurse (Reply #7)
onecaliberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)And how was it unecessary?
Didn't read the freaking article did you?
Her pelvic bones were too small and underdeveloped. She could not deliver that baby. She was too far along when they found out to do a safe abortion.
What's outrageous is all the outrage that's so blind to actual facts or basic understanding of anything other than "those" people in that "backward" country.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)She didn't know she was pregnant. Pregnancy wasn't discovered until 30 weeks gestation. WTF do you propose should have been done? Doctors said abortion would have been unsafe because she was so far along.
onecaliberal
(32,976 posts)LisaL
(44,980 posts)onecaliberal
(32,976 posts)It's not like the kid wouldn't know something was wrong
LisaL
(44,980 posts)I don't think at 10 she would understand what it means to be pregnant, which is what is being reported.
onecaliberal
(32,976 posts)LisaL
(44,980 posts)I can only go by what is being reported, but if you go for whatever it is you think (based on your own personal observations not related to this case), it makes for a difficult discussion.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)There have been cases in America of parents failing to realize their teenage daughters were pregnant. It happens.
In this case, why else do you imagine her parents would wait until she was at near full term to seek a judge's permission for an abortion?
I certainly don't see the parents as "bad guys". If you read the entire story, I think you'll see the only "bad guy" was the rapist, and he's been jailed.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)She's only a child and her parents are very poor. I'm sure they did what they thought was best for het. +- The little girl didn't even know she was pregnant.
onecaliberal
(32,976 posts)Response to onecaliberal (Reply #103)
LisaL This message was self-deleted by its author.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)what you think and feel seem to be posted on a thread.
IronLionZion
(45,615 posts)and she had a C section, probably while completely unconscious. It wouldn't take much anesthesia to knock out a small child. They must have told her it was surgery or a kidney stone or something like that. I wouldn't know what to tell a 10 year old rape survivor either
I hope she gets to live a good life after this ordeal.
Warpy
(111,418 posts)She'll be damaged goods, not really worth much on the marriage market because of her limited ability to bear an army of sons, since future deliveries will also need to be by c-section. Her best hope is if her family has enough money to educate her.
I don't know what the idiots on that court were thinking. I do suspect what they were thinking with.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)racist ignorance? "Limited ability to bear and army of sons", really? Just so you know, the "marriage market" isn't what you imagine it to be.
Her best hope is if her family does all it can to make up for their carelessness in allowing her to be raped by a family member in their own home.
I suspect you did not read that article, the "idiots" on that court were thinking with their brains, listening to what the panel of doctors were telling them, that at 32 weeks, she was too advanced with a VIABLE fetus to abort at that point.
So, what is it you suspect "they" were thinking with exactly? Brains that comprehend the complexity of the situation and a grasp of what the panel of physicians were telling them?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Doesn't this child have the right to keep her own baby?
First she is raped and now they want to steel her daughter from her?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's a mistake to second-guess the parents and all the professionals who have worked on behalf of this child.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)What happens when she figures out that she had been pregnant and wants to know where the hell her child is?
If they absolutely had to hide the truth from her then they could have told her they were adopting the baby (perhaps from a distant relative who needs help) and then raised her as the child's sister. When the kids were older they could have told the whole story.
This story is being told without any discussion of the pain that relinquishment causes. They are going to have a hard time concealing the truth from her for too long, especially with such a media firestorm.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and it's THEIR decision to make.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)That means that a person can be legitimately compelled to be a birth mother.
Should we do that here in the United States? If a 15 year old girl is pregnant should her parents have the right to forever sever the bonds of motherhood between her and her own child? Should they be allowed to forever separate her from her own child? (And please bare in mind that open adoptions can close in the blink of an adoptive parent's eye).
If she doesn't sign relinquishment papers then I don't believe that the adoption can be considered legitimate.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)What Is The economic situation of the family. Could they even support another child. This is India after all, where so many are desperately poor.
As far as legality and parents having the final say about their children in all aspects of their life, I don't know the law in India, but don't parents have the final say here in the US except when the authorities intervene.?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)allow a disgusting amount of coercion in the adoption process.
Me.
(35,454 posts)In many cases, states require the minor parent to be at least 12 and provisions are in place where adoption can occur in stead of the minor parent.
unless, in the childs best interests, the court dispenses with Consent.
If the parent is a minor, the writing shall be signed by a court ordered guardian ad litem who has been appointed by a judge of a court of record to appear on behalf of the minor parent for the purpose of executing consent
StevieM
(10,500 posts)is an involuntary TPR. And one that is being done to somebody who has done no wrong. Possibly even a rape victim who is now being violated a second time.
This used to happen all the time during the Baby Scoop Era. I had hoped that we were beyond those days. But I do remember hearing about stories from that era where the courts simple declared someone too young to be a good mother.
History will not vindicate this chapter in human history.
Me.
(35,454 posts)But there is a consistency.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)No person should have the right to separate a mother, of any age, from her child.
My appeal to emotion is not irrelevant. We determine laws based on our emotions. How do we feel about people not getting health care? Do we want all children to get an education? Do we want to support a given war?
And my question was a legal one. Should a parent be allowed to sign adoption papers for their minor children? If so, at what age should that start? Should it be for children under 14? Or should it go all the way up to 17 years and 364 days?
I believe a 10 year old is capable of feeling the loss of her child. The state should step in and help with the child, while allowing regular visits, until the mother is old enough to take over. Or better yet, the family could take the baby home and raise her.
Yes, there could be economic challenges, but the same could be said if the 10 year old's mother got pregnant with another child.
Ilsa
(61,710 posts)Her brain isn't mature enough for that. She's probably just now moving out of a stage of liking dolls.
It's her parent's decision. She isn't old enough to take care of a child. And we don't know enough about their financial situation as far as affording another child. The parents were probably relieved that the doctor recommended abortion for health reasons so they wouldn't have this situation in their home any longer.
If the girl was 16, I might feel differently about her ability to come to a rational decision based on information. A ten year old cannot conceive of what is needed to care for and raise a baby.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I didn't say 10 year olds were unfeeling, I said how do you feel the loss of something you never knew you had?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)First, she will eventually find out that she had a baby, and I don't think she will be indifferent to the loss of that child.
Second, her body will likely produce oxytocin when she gives birth. She is going to have love that she wants to give that baby--and no baby there to give it to.
I acknowledge that this story is unique in that the child does not currently understand that her child is being forever taken from her.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)First, not necessarily, and you're projecting things onto this future development you've imagined.
Second. Oxytocin requires contact with the baby, she's not going to "love" something she never knew was inside her, she's 10 and HAD NO IDEA SHE WAS PREGNANT. Also, NOT how oxytocin works. It was a c-section, no oxytocin surge. No bonding with what she's been told was a tumor that was removed. No contact with the newborn.
How is she "wanting to give love to a baby" that she has no idea ever existed?
She doesn't understand that she was even pregnant, or that there is a child, much less that she has one.
Please read the article, you're awfully confused about what happened here.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I admit that I am unclear on the exact workings of oxytocin, but it does seem likely that hormones were released in some way.
My main point is that she is going to learn that she had a child that was taken away from her. Her feelings on that subject should not be de-legitimized. Using your logic if she lashes out and is pained then her feelings are wrong and need to be worked through. When the time comes, I hope that all of her feelings--including feelings of loss and violation--are treated with respect.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)You're making a lot of assumptions not based on the actual facts here.
This seems to be more about your personal feelings about adoption than what's going on with this 10 year old, she barely makes an impression in all of the posts her.
What I've been trying to tell you is that the RAPE and INCEST she endured are what she's going to remember. She's not going to remember a child she won't be told about. Her feelings on the subject are not being delegitimized, but it's not her feelings you'e talking about.
There is no logic being used here, just more horning in on issues that apparently were not clear in the article, which tells you repeatedly that she doesn't know about the pregnancy.
To get whatever ridiculous thing about her "lashing out" and having "wrong feelings" and whatever, you have to literally ignore the little girl here and move onto yourself, or whomever it is you're thinking of, because it's not about the 10 year old here, or anything about her case, or anything I've said, or any logic you've decided you've seen from me.
I don't see much respect here for the case specifically, her doctors, her parents, her country, or the judges who made the best and most informed decision for her when she was unable to, just a lot of abuse, a lot of ignorance and a whole lot of judgment based on personal issues.
I'm truly sorry about what happened to you or whomever you're thinking about, but this isn't about your feelings or about any one who has chosen to give up a child to adoption. That's literally not about this 10 year old. It's dishonest and disingenuous to be using this child's situation to speak of personal issues.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 17, 2017, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)
You are de-legitimizing her feelings, and those of other rape victims, when you unilaterally declare by fiat that she will not be pained by the loss of her child.
And if you read the other stories on the subject you would know that she will ultimately learn about the child. Her uncle's name was published and the media figured out who she was. They are camped outside the family's house. The parents are worried that kids at school know.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40823438
And FYI, a lot of people who have lost a child to adoption did not "choose to give up a child" as you put it.
My concern here is for the 10 year old girl and her daughter, not myself.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Your own ad hominems are not based on anything I've said they're literally amde up. I"m doing no such thing to this 10 year old whom you're using to project other things upon or any other rape victims. Saying so is an outright lie.
You unilaterally made up a bunch of strawmen and you're accusing me of things I never said or implied.
I read the story, what's more I understood the words in it and not having personal issues and strawmen to create, I'm able to see past my privilege to understand how things work in this culture, which you're clearly ignorant about.
FYI, don't really care about your tangents since I've not engaged with you on your favorite topics, only on the one about this 10 year old girl about whom you know nothing and imagine much.
I've seen zero concern for this little girl or her daughter, just a lot of projection and a lot of privilege and offense at things that were not said by me, but were created on your own with little reference to anything I said.
It's sad that this little girl's circumstances are less important than whatever thing you're advocating, and that need to attack overcame all that. Very sad indeed.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)eom
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)since it was her uncle who raped her, but that part never really entered into the equation when it was all about the personal crap about Franco and abortion and making up nonsensical things, was it?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I mentioned Franco once, to highlight a point about the Baby Scoop Era and the kinds of people who promoted it. I could also have talked about serial killer Georgia Tann, who is the mother of our modern system of adoption in the United States.
Rape and incest victims are entitled to keep their children. It should be up to them.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)but sure make it about abortion, something I didn't mention and which isn't an issue here at all. And yet again with Frnco.
You apparently still cannot fathom that the horror here is the freaking RAPE of a 10 year old. Serial killers, fascists and your personal crusade about abortion really have nothing at all to do with anything here, nor adoption or the system here in the US.
Again, if any words that you claim to have read had made it through, you'd realize the ridiculousness of insisting that a 10 year old who didn't know she was pregnant, or even what pregnancy is, should be able to keep a child she knew nothing about.
But again, it's not about the child victim here, it's all about whatever you wish to yammer on about, because it's not like SHE matters at all. Even the preemie doesn't merit much mention except as part of your own framing of this as an adoption issue. Or a Franco issue or some serial killer.
Whatever, it's truly sad that that's all this case is, no compassion, no understanding, just a tabula rasa to self indulge some projection.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)My response, in my last post before this one, was to say that I never brought up abortion in this thread, not once. And I don't understand why you brought it up since we weren't discussing it.
I mentioned Franco once and every other time he came up it was because you raised him and I had to mention his name in quoting you and responding to your question about why I referenced him.
I mentioned serial killer Georgia Tann, the mother of modern adoption in the United States, to give an example of someone else I could have asserted to a point I made ONCE, when I happened to have mentioned Franco instead. That point I was making in that long-ago post was that the Baby Scoop Era was a terrible thing and we should not look to maintain its values.
I do care about the 10 year old girl. I am worried about how she will feel when learns he child was taken away from her without her consent.
And I do not have a "personal crusade about abortion" as you falsely stated. And before you accuse me of misconstruing your words let me point out that I am quoting you verbatim in the very post that I am responding to here.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)You were all about the adoption.
Yet again about Franco, scoops and serial killers.
So you don't give a flying frack about how she's going to deal with the only trauma she's actually experienced? The repeated rapes?
How nice.
Personal crusade about adoption, can't be bothered giving a flying fig about her actual trauma just imaginary nonexistent trauma, that's really more about yourself than her.
So many words, not an iota of compassion or something that isn't self-involved.
Whatever.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)bringing them up. I wrote their names in to emphasize my point about how I only mentioned him once and then you kept bringing it up. My point was that he wasn't a regular part of the points I have been making. Georgia Tann was mentioned as an alternate example I could have given, when making points about the Baby Scoop Era, rather than the one I gave. And I only wrote about her in a post designed to get you to stop harping on the fact that I wrote Franco's name in one post.
The Baby Scoop Era was an era in history when coerced adoptions were the norm. It is perfectly legitimate to bring it up in a conversation about adoption.
I am compassionate for the child and what she had been through. Her well-being is my concern. I hope she never finds out that she has a child that was taken away, but I fear that she will. And I fear that will cause her more pain.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)or even empathy.
Please seek out some understanding of the situation here, none of your many replies show that you have figured out what was going on here, not even when it was explained numerous times. Step out of the privilege and the personal concerns and learn some compassion for this poor rape victim whose trauma yous till have not appreciated because it is not your own or Francos or some serial killer and something about scoops.
Whatever.
Xanana
(2 posts)Indian villagers cannot afford to be sentimental/emotional. There is no way she or her family would be able to keep the baby without bringing shame and ostracism to the family. She would then not be able to get married later when she is older. And that shame could even mean life or death for the girl and certainly hardship for the whole family. Read about panchayats in India.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)So you would consider a law here in the United States that allowed a 16 year old girl's parents to compel her to relinquish her own child?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)lost, sure.
This is such a ridiculous strawman that I can't even believe you asked such thing. A 10 year old even in the US is subject to their parents decisions, unless she has herself emancipated. She has rights of autonomy in medical care etc. if she demonstrates that she understands what she's asking for.
These are actual cases considered in US courts, when a child doesn't want any more medical treatment, or wants treatment when her parents refuse.
There is literally no basis for asking such a silly question and no one moronic enough to draft such a stupid law.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)It is a life decision and one that will stay with a girl until the day she dies.
I asked the question I asked because it was a direct response to your statement: "If the girl was 16, I might feel differently about her ability to come to a rational decision based on information."
That suggests that you are uncertain as to whether or not a 15 or 16 year old can be legitimately forced to give up her own child if her parents wish to compel it.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)working through the psychology of reliquishment.
THIS case, was a 10 year old who was raped and DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS PREGNANT. She MADE NO DECISIONS here, not to have sex, get pregnant, remain pregnant, deliver a child, or give it up.
Her FREAKING RAPE by her UNCLE will stay with a girl until the day she dies.
Why would you put extra detrimental emotional trauma (that you're so concerned about) onto this poor little girl? She didn't know. She's not suffering from any of the things you're projecting on her, her parents, the ones your pretending are not dealing with a RAPE victim that's 10 years old never had her period, and is ALREADY traumatized, made the best decision they could for their child.
They tried to get an abortion, but it was far too late for that when the pregnancy was discovered.
I didn't make that statement, and it was a valid one, that pre-supposed that a 16 year old and a 10 year old are vastly different, and that a 16 year old would have some understanding of what pregnancy actually is that a 10 year old does not have.
No, it suggests nothing of the sort, other than a basic lack of understanding of the circumstances here, despite the article being quite clear and several people explaining what went on. It also suggests an ignorance of what a TEN YEAR OLD whose parents stated that she didn't know was pregnant is a different than 15 or 16 year olds who are generally presumed to have achieved menarche and understand basics about their developed bodies.
My words which expressly address what young patients have to go through to demonstrate to medical and legal professionals to assert their autonomy should "suggest" that you're erroneous in the conclusions you've reached on your own, ignoring what I literally said.
Also, it suggests an ignorance of actual cases in which it's not the age of the mother but the circumstances that have led to 15 and 16 year olds to give up their children when their parents wish to compel it.
There's even an Law and Order SVU episode that addresses.
Please stop projecting all sorts of things onto a case you're quite mistaken about, and go read the article, and you'll realize why all this angst you're projecting from a place of privilege doesn't work with the realities of this case.
To summarize:
No decisions made by 10 year old.
No "relinquishment" pain, since she relinquished nothing.
Read words, don't make assumptions.
Read Article.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)She will ultimately realize what was taken from her--her own child. And she has once again had autonomy and control taken away from her by others.
50 percent of rape victims have abortions. 32 percent keep there babies and raise them. 12 percent have miscarriages. 6 percent place the child for adoption. Women can be pained by a rape and still love the child it produced. Many do just that and have been for eons. No woman should ever be made to be ashamed of loving her child, or treated as if that love diminishes her legitimate pain from the rape.
I cannot believe that you would accuse me of coming from a place of privilege. There is nothing privileged about those who have fallen victim to the adoption industry or who have suffered adoption loss during this irredeemable chapter in human history. The values that often govern us were the core values of Francisco Franco in these matters.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Read it again to disabuse yourself of the notion that the 10 year old who didn't know anything about pregnancy period, much less that she was, would be relinquishing anything, feel the pain of that, was bonding with oxytocin etc. etc. etc.
10 year olds don't have autonomy, they have no control over their own lives or over medical decisions.
You go on about a whole bunch of irrelevant statistics that have nothing to do with what happened here, or the choices you're attacking her parents for making, despite being told repeatedly.
A TEN YEAR OLD RAPE and INCEST victim WHO DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS PREGNANT. Whose parents are POOR. And you're yammering on about "love" and choices and autonomy,
You're literally coming from a place of privilege and projecting your own experience onto a situation that has nothing to do with what you enjoy like the ability to take on another mouth to feed, and all this ranting about the adoption industry? What the actual hell? What happened to this girl is not about you and that seems to be the issue, the overpersonalization while ignoring the actual facts here.
The values that govern here and who? Fransisco Franco? What the actual hell does some Spanish dictator have to with any of this?
The values that lead one to judge the parents of a young rape victim without knowing the first thing about them are not terribly good ones, dragging personal issues, a faulty knowledge of neurohoromes and random fascists into the mix to attack a family dealing with some horrific things right now, even worse.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)the Baby Scoop Era in Spain was particularly ruthless. You were the one who accused me of coming from a place of privilege and I defended myself against this unprovoked attack by pointing out that the alternative values have a very dark history.
I am not attacking a family. I am defending the right of a mother and child to be together, and not have other people unilaterally terminate that right without their consent.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)You're apparently not interested in the facts or the 10 year old.
Instead going off about Franco, and personal reminisce of your experiences with adoption.
You are coming from a place of privilege and I EXPLAINED why, and not understanding you're gong off on some dark values that ignore the circumstances of this little girl to excuse ranting about irrelevant things.
Franco and your personal history have nothing to do with this little girl. I did not attack you, I pointed out that your casual dismissal of this girls circumstances and the attacks on her parents were from a place of privilege and ignorance and they are. "Why can't they just adopt the baby?" Who cares if they're poor, they should just do it. "She'll find out" cause the media frenzy! She's 10, and very poor in a country where people don't have the privilege you do, and live in a culture different from yours, where children don't have access to media that you're familiar with.
You're attacking the parents, you're defending your own rights, the little girl doesn't even figure into your many posts, you literally have no clue what's happening with her. The mother isn't even aware of what pregnancy is, and she's too young for consent, and too young to even understand what's happened to her.
Not about you, personally. But you keep trying to make it so, and about Franco for some reason. That's a privileged position where you can ignore the realities these parents and this child face to judge them and go on about irrelevant nonsense.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)my values are the opposite of his and opposite those of the Baby Scoop Era--and this baby is being scooped up. This is not about privilege and using your logic we should do more the encourage adoption of children out of third world countries so they can be wealthier.
I would argue that we should devote ourselves to family preservation. And to helping to lift up the third world. We should not raid them for their children.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)things you see as attacks, in order to attack in as scattered and incoherent a manner as possible.
I would argue that some attention is needed to reading comprhension and some basic course in learning to debate properly becuase while much argument is happening, it's all fallacious and it's just not well done, lacks sense, coherence and decorum considering that it's all personal attacks and untrue statements.
It's really sick and condescending not to mention rather bigoted to talk about a 10 year old rape victim and blather on about the "third world" and family presevation.
SHE 10 FFS.
It's your privilege and ignorance speaking that you think white people are going to be adopting this child, no dear. That nation you're sneering at has it's own childless couples seeking to adopt newborns.
Once again, there doesn't seem to be a single iota of understanding of literally any aspect of this case, just more cluelessness about those brown people and western privilege that thinks that everything is about themselves and how they're affected and serviced/.
You know nothing about logic period, much less mine.
This baby is not being scooped anywhere, and the assumptions, the privilege, the ignorance and the sheer lunacy are astounding here. Read the article and notice none of the things you've said were mentioned that all came from your privilege and your own bias against this country you know squat about and the parents you attack.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)And, as it so happens, in my opinion, they made the correct one.
But, I must let you know, in fact, ANY decision that the parents would have made would be the CORRECT one. BECAUSE, the decision is THEIRS TO MAKE, not yours. THEY make the decision for THEIR family and THEIR child and for the welfare and future of the infant. Whether it was to give the infant up for adoption, or to keep it, or to raise it as a sibling, or to raise it as a grandchild with the ten-year-old girl playing the role of Mother... it doesn't matter.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)been delayed for many years while she didn't know the whole story.
I disagree with everything you said. In my opinion, you got zero things right.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)decisions for herself. Obviously she isn't able to raise a child, being a child herself.
Xanana
(2 posts)I have a personal connection to India. Rural village India is very, very different from life in the US. You cannot imagine unless you've spent time there. Most people, especially young women and girls, have very few options and there are many taboos. Infants are frequently put into orphanages or abandoned, or sometimes sold. There are many reasons for this. And yes, parents have absolute authority over unmarried daughters. When they get married, the husband's family has authority over them. That's the way it is.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)They're very poor, and possibly cannot afford to do this. Does no one read the article before deciding to rant on about things they don't know much about?
This story is being told without addressing all the issues that adult or older teens deal with when they know very well how they got pregnant, were aware of their pregnancy and actually relinquished a child.
She's a 10 year old from a poor family, what media firestorm do you think she's being exposed to? Think she'll see it on her ipad? Her smartphone? On her Twitter feed?
She experienced no such pain and her parents are doing what they can to keep that pain from her, and dealing more with the pain she actually is aware of, the repeated rapes by her uncle.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I did read the article.
Money is always a complicating factor, just as it would be if the 10 year old's mother got pregnant again.
I am glad that she doesn't know what has happened, although she may know on a biological level that something feels off. And we don't know how she will feel when she finds out about the baby. I have a feeling that she will want to know where her child is.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)What a backwards fucking country.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)language used when referring to the state of mother and child after a successful delivery, right?
In what way is that racist declaration applicable here? How backwards of them to consider the health of 10 year old and the newborn?
We're the backwards fucking country that excuses violent murder when it's done by white people, that jails women for miscarriages, that has a high fucking rate of maternal mortality despite spending the most on medical care in the world?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)instead of allowing an abortion
Also, punitive rapes--at the order of village elders-- are a thing in rural India. As are a whole host of misogynist and sexist societal pathologies.
This is not an isolated incident.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)in the capital city of Chandigarh. The supreme court announced its decision when she was at 32 weeks, the C-section took place at 35 weeks.
Perhaps stop demonizing whomever you think "they" are, and read the article so you can at least get one or two facts correct?
"They" didn't force anything, "they" followed the medical advice of the panel of doctors who said the risks from abortion were greater at this stage.
There was no village.
There were no elders.
There was no punitive rape, just the rapist being charged, with "those" people in that "village" of a million people demanding that he be hanged.
This wasn't rural India, and whatever sensationalist story you head about doesn't make it a "thing" in rural India, any more than the litany of stupid stuff that happens here in rural and urban America makes it a thing.
" A whole host of misogynistic and sexist social pathologies"? What country does not have those, including our own?
What's not an isolated incident exactly? You don't seem to have any clue what this incident even was.
Read the article and understand that societal pathologies of racism and ignorance are also not isolated incidents and something we need to address in our diseased society before we start making ignorant comments about other countries without having the first clue about what we're even talking about.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)She was basically forced to give birth.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)She was indeed forced to gestate, because the doctors felt that an abortion posed too great a risk.
What's the greater sin here? An abortion that risked her life or continuing gestation that posed a lower risk?
That's issue here they followed advice. The parents wanted to terminate the pregnancy, which is the sane and rational thing to do when you find your 10 year old has been raped and impregnated. The court listend to the advice of the team of doctors who went over all the bad options they had and chose the least dangerous one.
Apparently this is "backwards" and immoral. What's moral here, to go against medical advice to endanger a child by aborting a viable pregnancy?
Honestly, what was the best decision here? Why do you think that ignoring the doctors would have been better here? Why were they wrong and why was the court wrong to listen to them?
onecaliberal
(32,976 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)After all, who cares what aborting at 32 weeks does to a 10 year old right? Not like the doctors know or the court that listened to them.
I mean why let facts stand in the way of some ignorant, racist outrage about the "backwards country" and "those" people, right?
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)That's what is fucking backwards. And you want to start in with whataboutism?
No thanks.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)them that an abortion at 32 weeks is DANGEROUS to a 10 year old is so very forward?
What's fucking backwards is a bunch of people engaging in some racist nonsense because they won't read the article, won't familiarize themselves with any facts and are busy with exposing how deep the ignorance and racist actually runs in this country.
How about we start with the facts here, rather than the ignorance about "backwards countries" that DARE to care about the health of the 10 year old rape victim, rather than authorizing a procedure the DOCTORS said would be dangerous and risk her life. Killing a rape victim by giving in to understandable demands for a very late term abortion of a viable fetus is more backward.
Learn the facts here and then realize just who is being backwards here, here's a hint: it wasn't the court or the doctors.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)not the rule. Now is really not the time for hyperbole.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)whathehell
(29,102 posts)I don't need primers.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)whathehell
(29,102 posts)and always was, though to a lesser extent, perhaps, than in the past....
Response to JI7 (Original post)
CountAllVotes This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Here's what happens in the U.S.
Source: http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
The prevalence of child sexual abuse is difficult to determine because it is often not reported; experts agree that the incidence is far greater than what is reported to authorities. CSA is also not uniformly defined, so statistics may vary. Statistics below represent some of the research done on child sexual abuse.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Childrens Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 9.2% of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24).
Studies by David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, show that:
1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13.
According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report, 3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well (page 5).
A Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows 1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18).
A study conducted in 1986 found that 63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8).
Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (page 9).
A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (page 1)
Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused (page 171).
In the vast majority of cases where there is credible evidence that a child has been penetrated, only between 5 and 15% of those children will have genital injuries consistent with sexual abuse (page 2).
Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (page 1).
Compared to those with no history of sexual abuse, young males who were sexually abused were five times more likely to cause teen pregnancy, three times more likely to have multiple sexual partners and two times more likely to have unprotected sex, according to the study published online and in the June print issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.
This is indeed sick. At least we know that her rapist will be convicted, unlike rapists here in the US who are caught and tried (like the man who raped a 3 year old in MI, and was let go after convinction)
Who is the "they" who are cutting legs and arms of a child? And a devil emoticon? That is what the Catholics and people like Pat Robertson have accused non Christians of being. The "they" in question are a poor family, but one that is gainfully employed, "they" are a government employee and a maid, who are doing what's best for their child after they've discovered what horrific thing has happened to her, they're giving up the newborn for adoption.
The amount of racism and total ignorance from people who were just saying yesterday how sick racism is, well it's just remarkable. No one likes to confront what oozes out of them when they can't help it.
Please correct your ignorance, I'm guessing it's not hate that informed that offensive remark but just an absence of knowledge or understanding. "They" are not evil, they are not the devil and they aren't some caricatures out of some gruesome British fiction intent on demonizing desperate people in a country they ravaged.
Response to Ninsianna (Reply #38)
CountAllVotes This message was self-deleted by its author.
The girl was never told that she was pregnant and is not aware that the baby has been delivered"
Huh? How in the hell is that even possible?
Didn't know India was non abortion.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,879 posts)Read the article.
Ligyron
(7,644 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,879 posts)It really helps a lot to read the story one is commenting on other than a four paragraph clip from the story.
You'll often find out other facts re: the story if you read the entire thing it I've noticed.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)India is not non-abortion, they have weird rules in place to address sex selection abortion. (My cousin is pregnant in India at the moment, and they won't tell her the gender, so I'm exploring my silly notions of colors of baby stuff to send her.)
The child was at 32 weeks, and the panel of doctors were saying that she was far too advanced for a safe abortion. That's equivalent to a 7 week preemie, it was viable.
It wasn't about the abortion, it was about the advancement of the pregnancy and the medical risks to mother and child.
Also, there is a whole TLC or Discovery channel show called "I didn't know I was pregnant" which is about sexually active older women/girls who has already started menstruating. This was a 10 year old.
Ligyron
(7,644 posts)Yeah, I'm a male so ...
Hope your cousin has a healthy, beautiful baby of whatever sex.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I'm hoping for a girl, the clothes are soooooooooo much cuter, Indian and American!
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)A court ruling against the best decision for the health of one of it's citizens.
Lying to the girl. She will find out in the next couple of years.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)They decided that abortion at such an advanced pregnancy posed more medical risks to the health of one of its citizens.
They didn't really lie to her, she had no idea she was pregnant. I think dealing with the multiple rapes is a bit of a concern for her parents. Telling her about her pregnancy would have been more harmful, in their estimation.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)"They didn't really lie to her."
Yes, they did. If they didn't you wouldn't need to hedge with the word "really".
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)A lie of omission. You think it would have been better for them to tell her that she was pregnant before they had a discussion of where babies come from, or what menstruation is, and that she had given birth to a baby that they couldn't raise?
This of course before dealing with the RAPE and the trial of her uncle who had been abusing her for 7 months?
THAT'S what's moral and ethical here?
Come on now.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Actually, numerous one hundred percent lies.
It doesn't seem you know what a lie of omission is. As you just defined it, every single lie is a lie of omission.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I mean forget about protecting the rape victim, the 10 year old. One must not lie, because lying is evil. Traumatizing a victim of incest and rape by telling her the 100% truth is ever so much better.
How terribly moral, sadistic as hell, but it's not a real person we're dealing with here, right? Just a little brown girl, one of "those" "backward" people whose parents clearly don't give a rats patoot about her emotional and mental well being after finding out exactly what happened to her, at the hands of her mother's brother right?
I do know what a lie of omission is, and it doesn't seem like the human part of the equation is at play here. As you just ignored the part of my post that addressed why you think it's 100% a great idea to tell a 10 year old 100% of everything, since not doing so means that one is being immoral and lying, per your definition.
Glad that's what's important here.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)They must have not wanted to.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Or even addressed it. I did not limit the scope of my comment to any one individual.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)It's not like she would be able to raise the child. Her parents didn't even want to see the child and the child was given up for adoption. From what is being reported, parents didn't want her to know and didn't want doctors to tell her.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)I think the parents were trying to save her further trauma.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)raped and impregnated by her own uncle....Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the parents were trying NOT to traumatize her further? That they, rather than you or I, might know what was in her best interests?
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)The courts have basically abetted the uncle in raping this child.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The courts made a decision based on the what the doctors said about the medical risks she faced if she aborted at 32 weeks.
It's truly ignorant to say that the courts abetted a rape, what the actual fuck would lead ANYONE to that ridiculous conclusion?
Response to JI7 (Original post)
Doitnow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The largest democracy in the world, with the rule of law made a decision based on the best medical advice, and you're suprised they didn't kill the 10 year old rape victim and her newborn?
WTAF?
Racism and ignorance doesn't require a polo shirt, a Nazi flag, and a tiki torch it rears its head in other ways too.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)but you've made repeated accusations of 'racism" toward those of a different opinion. It's my understanding that Indians are Caucasian, so I:m not sure how "racism" would apply. The differences that would apply would, I believe, be cultural.
.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)racist things. I argued nothing about opinions here, I merely pointed out that people insisting that their personal ignorance and bias about that culture and that country were literally incorrect based on the facts here, which they got wrong and their tangents were indeed racist.
Um, well that's the word we have to use when it comes to "brown people" from "foreign countries" that Westerners and "white people" have deep ignorance and bias about.
That debunked theory of race classifies Indians, Native American , Latinos and people of Arab and semitic descent as "caucasian". People don't have an issue when anyone makes color based, ethnicity based, religious based, culture and nationality based denigrating comments based on pure ignorance about these groups. How is it any different?
It's still bigotry and hate plain and simple, and as profound as any shown to the other "Caucasian" groups.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)and no one need accept there are simply because you say so -- explanation and examples are needed, and you haven't provided any. As I said, I see opinions I disagree with, but they are based
on actions, not on color or religion.
As for constant, incorrect usage of the term "racist" because:
"Um, that's the word we have to use when 'brown people' from 'foreign countries' that 'white people' and westerners have deep ignorance and bias about".
Um, no, that isn't the word we 'have to' use' especially when it it's incorrect. Doing so deprives it of meaning, and makes it a catch-all term that is used, as often as not, to stop the discussion and silence dissent. The same holds true for blanket, race-based allegations of "deep bias and ignorance" "hatred and bigotry".
To be honest, Ninsianna, you seem extremely angry, and that level of anger is rarely helpful when attempting a sound, reasonable discussion. I' will leave it at that.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)in many posts. The ones I responded to would be a good start.
Apparently a primer is required to understand what racism and bigotry are how to recognize them when they're staring one right in the face. Dismissing them based on some pedantic twisting of the race theory, while ignoring how that would apply in the other forms of racism that's clear to everyone today is ... odd to say the least.
Sorry, but no amount of explaining how bigotry based on ethnicity, skin color, religion and nationality is somehow not racist because the targets are Indians will make it any less racist.
To be honest, that's what many people defending racists say to women who dare to call out the bigotry, and that level of complicit behavior and cover is rarely something anyone who actually is sound or reasonable engages in.
It's simply wrong, by definition, in fact, and it's being used to silence discussion, racism is wrong, bigotry is wrong, embracing ignorance to ply one's bigotry is wrong, defending those bigots and ignorant racists by using an "angry brown woman" trope is equally wrong.
This type of servicing of bigots and racists is even more wrong.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)and realize that I stand by my statements, and ,have no intention of continuing this discussion with you. Goodbye.
Mike Nelson
(9,980 posts)...the rape has not ended.
Solly Mack
(90,799 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Or will he be let out to molest more relatives before this kid can even recover from her physical wounds?
LisaL
(44,980 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)family, far away. I doubt they will relocate, cut family ties. This will haunt the abused child through family relatives as she grows up.